This isnt chess. The government and military are still intact, the VP seems vehemently against rolling over, it just pisses off America's enemies more and lets them know that kidnapping a head of state is now on the table and they'd better close the Kidnapping Gap and be more ready for that possibility and look into how to do it themselves. That just leads to holding foreign kings for ransom again, it's not done cause under a system that isnt absolute monarchy the snake works just fine without the head, no one does this cause it's pointless and opens up equally dirty retaliation, if a head of state orders the kidnapping of another head of state the target could be more on them personally than before, which usually people who want to stay alive try to avoid. How does this advance American Interests as opposed to a more normal act of aggression? Seems like really bad strategy to me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Underdevelopment is, itself, a goal of imperialism.

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't see what this has to do with my post.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Removing heads of state is a factor of underdevelopment? It doesn't have to destroy the government, just weaken it.

What's interesting is they went for a kidnapping instead of an assassination, but it's otherwise the same playbook.

[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 week ago

They have to have the show trial to justify it after the fact and/or manufacture consent for the next round.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 20 points 1 week ago

Yeah I wonder if the capture is to keep him as some kind of bargaining chip / leverage

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You have to take the rest of the government down as well for that to work usually

[–] dustcommie@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you don't think actions like these will destabilize/weaken and open up opportunism (and hopelessness) in the people, military, and government then you are very optimistic. If right wing coup happens, great for US, if left wing (or even just progressive) gains more support just rinse and repeat, maybe push to isolate even more. US (as a power) loses nothing as it is very clear American people and international community will do very little of note.

If this ends up creating "blowback", it becomes "see we need to intervene more". Until US actions leads to boots on US soil, and US getting bombed to hell it stays winning (but guess what, US got nukes so even if the most advanced military isn't a deterrent the world would tremble... so it really has to come from the people in the US which won't happen).

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

All of this can and has been achieved by less weird means before.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

They don't have to take down the government to hinder national development, they merely need instability and internal conflict.

This is a weird way of going about it, but that might come down to Trump's idiosyncrasies. Trump probably thinks he can have a reality TV show trial where he'll get to yell "You're fired!" when they execute Maduro on the electric chair or something fucking stupid.

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

I really wouldn't put it past the current admin to assume that removing maduro is enough to cause the government to lose all support. If what other users are saying about the strike actually targeting maduro and his top three successors (VP, minister of the interior, and minister of defense) is true - and apparently that's what the media is reporting, though I haven't checked for myself - then I think it's very likely this actually was a botched attempt to take down the Venezuelan government. I can definitely see the current US government believing that removing maduro and his successors would essentially end the Venezuelan government.